from the pitchforks-and-courtrooms dept

It seemed like something from The Onion… or Monty Python: scientists jailed for not predicting the 2009 earthquake in L'Aquila, Italy. Because their risk assessment delivered six days before the quake "failed" to prevent the earthquake from occurring, Judge Marco Billi decided all six scientists were guilty of manslaughter due to their "superficial, approximate and generic" analysis. They weren't held responsible for all 300+ deaths, but specifically for the 29 deaths of people who stayed in their homes (rather than venturing out) because they believed there was "no risk" of an earthquake.

Six seismologists accused of misleading the public about the risk of an earthquake in Italy were cleared of manslaughter on 10 November. An appeals court overturned their six-year prison sentences and reduced to two years the sentence for a government official who had been convicted with them.

We'll get back to that last sentence in a moment, but let us first note that sanity hasn't completely prevailed.

The finding by a three-judge appeals court prompted many L’Aquila citizens who were waiting outside the courtroom to react with rage, shouting “shame” and saying that the Italian state had just acquitted itself, local media reported.

Sure, this could have the appearance of a government body (the National Commission for the Forecast and Prevention of Major Risks) getting an assist from another government body (the court system -- the same court system, mind you, that two years earlier convicted these witches scientists of manslaughter), but it isn't. It's the return to a better, simpler time when scientists weren't charged with criminal activities simply for providing risk analysis.

Now, back to the sentence that wasn't overturned.

The government official still doing hard time is Bernardo De Bernardinis, (then) deputy director of the Italian Civil Protection Dept. Apparently, the panel of judges considered his interpretation of the scientists' risk analysis to carry a bit more culpability. This could be because his interpretation of the scientists' assessment ("We showed a map where L’Aquila is purple, which means the highest hazard") was inexplicably much, much cheerier ("The scientific community tells me there is no danger because there is an ongoing discharge of energy"). As it stands now, De Bernardinis has had 16 charges of manslaughter dismissed, but is still working off the other 13.

Nature notes that, because it might take up to three months for the verdict to be published, we don't really know the rationale behind the acquittals. One would hope the reasoning runs along the lines of "to allow these convictions to stand would be batshit crazy, not to mention a latent threat to scientists all over our country." One of the scientists acquitted noted that it appeared the panel of judges agreed no crime had actually been committed -- which is basically the same thing as above, presumably with more legalese.

And, of course, this is a judicial system so it must be noted that these acquittals can be appealed and Italy may find itself locking up scientists again, much to the general aghastness of everyone.

from the ownership-culture-gone-mad dept

One of the pernicious effects of once-obscure legal issues surrounding copyright and patents seeping into everyday life is the belief that even the vaguest ideas can be owned, and that such ownership is a thing worth fighting over. Here, for example, is a sorry tale from Christchurch in New Zealand, which suffered a massive earthquake in which 181 people died back in February of this year:

The City Mall Restart project is being threatened with legal action after being accused of copying a "pop-up mall" in London.

Director of the London Boxpark development Roger Wade emailed City Mall Restart organisers accusing them of a "blatant breach of the Boxpark intellectual property rights".

"Boxpark has now instructed legal action against the owners of City Mall – Pop Up Mall for intellectual property rights infringement," he said.

But City Mall organisers have hit back, claiming Boxpark was being "precious" and there were no similarities between the projects.

The threat could not have come at worse time for Christchurch organisers, with City Mall scheduled to reopen on Saturday, marking the first return of retail to central Christchurch since the February 22 earthquake.

And if, like me, you're wondering what exactly a "pop-up mall" might be – does it leap out of the earth as you approach, perhaps? - here's the basic idea:

The temporary shopping centre has been described as a "pop-up mall" made out of 60 shipping containers converted into 27 shops, including two cafes

>
But the people behind the New Zealand pop-up mall claim there are key differences between this and the London pop-up mall:

However, he denied similarities between the projects, with the City Mall development divided into two horseshoe precincts while Boxpark was essentially a giant box with a cafe on the top.

"It will be very hard to say it's a copy because it doesn't look anything like Boxpark. The only thing that aligns these things together is they both use containers."

So the deep philosophical questions come down to these. Wherein lies the Platonic essence of a pop-up mall? Is the use of containers enough to generate the mall's pop-upness, or is their arrangement important too? And finally, and perhaps most importantly, is a world in which a city devastated by an earthquake has to worry about such things still sane in any meaningful sense?

from the legal-insanity dept

Capitalist Lion Tamer points us to a story that sounds like it should be in The Onion. However, it appears to be real that some Italian seismologists are being tried for manslaughter due to an earthquake that they failed to predict. The key was that apparently some of the seismologists had suggested that seismic activity in the area wasn't likely to lead to an earthquake... which turned out to be wrong:

At the time of the 31 March 2009 meeting, seismic activity had been going on in the area for more than three months, causing alarm in the population. De Bernardinis summoned the meeting and asked the scientists to assess the risk of a major earthquake and its possible consequences. The meeting was followed by a press conference by De Bernardinis and Barberi, where the two reassured the population that the seismic sequence did not necessarily hint at a major earthquake. De Bernardinis, in particular, appeared on television saying that “the scientific community tells me there is no danger, because there is an ongoing discharge of energy. The situation looks favorable”. A major earthquake did hit on April 6 though, killing 309 people. In the aftermath, many citizens quoted those statements as the reason they did not take precautionary measures, such as fleeing their homes. According to the accusation, many people who would otherwise leave the area decided to stay, and were eventually killed in the collapse of their houses.

That seems crazy, but the judge refused to dismiss the case, and it will apparently start this fall. What's next? Will someone sue the weatherman for being wrong?

from the well-isn't-that-nice dept

You may recall that a few years back, New Zealand politicians tried to sneak through a "three strikes" proposal to kick people offline based on accusations (not convictions) of file sharing. When lots of New Zealanders complained, the Copyright Minister first got angry that anyone wouldn't accept this, but eventually the government was forced to back down. Of course, that was only temporary, as last year the plan came back, with a sneaky provision that said they'd only really implement it if file sharing didn't decrease. The argument was that you couldn't say the law was about kicking people off the internet, because it wouldn't start doing that for a few years.

Of course, that proposal hadn't been touched since last December... and yet suddenly it's being pushed through quickly, to the surprise of many New Zealand politicians who had no idea it was even on the docket. Even more nefarious? Supporters are trying to attach it to an emergency bill related to earthquake recovery efforts in the wake of the Christchurch earthquake. Of course, no politician wants to be seen holding up an earthquake recovery bill. This is the ultimate in underhanded moves by politicians, at the behest of the entertainment industry, to ram through broken policies by attaching it to a separate bill. Update: Good explanation in the comments showing that this bill wasn't "attached" to the earthquake bill, but rather just put through the same process in parallel.

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Sometimes people really leap before looking -- and that can be especially dangerous when it comes to technologies that we don't fully understand. Not too long ago, we created rivers so polluted that they'd actually catch on fire. We seem to be tuning in to the environmental repercussions of the chemical industry, but we might be making analogous mistakes when it comes to nuclear or biological technologies. Too much, too soon -- and we'll be cleaning up the aftermath for generations (if it can be cleaned up). Here are some quick links to some potentially concerning activities.

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

It's hard to express the devastation caused by the earthquake in Japan. And even though the aftershocks have subsided, now there's the threat of radioactive pollution from a nearby nuclear power plant. But make no mistake, the majority of the disaster has been caused by natural forces -- and the nuclear power plant meltdown(s) shouldn't shoulder too much blame.